Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

timothy posted about a year ago | from the something-you'd-wish-was-hard-to-believe dept.

Government 292

MikeatWired writes "It wasn't ever seriously in doubt, but the FBI yesterday acknowledged that it secretly took control of Freedom Hosting last July, days before the servers of the largest provider of ultra-anonymous hosting were found to be serving custom malware designed to identify visitors. Freedom Hosting's operator, Eric Eoin Marques, had rented the servers from an unnamed commercial hosting provider in France, and paid for them from a bank account in Las Vegas. It's not clear how the FBI took over the servers in late July, but the bureau was temporarily thwarted when Marques somehow regained access and changed the passwords, briefly locking out the FBI until it gained back control. The new details emerged in local press reports from a Thursday bail hearing in Dublin, Ireland, where Marques, 28, is fighting extradition to America on charges that Freedom Hosting facilitated child pornography on a massive scale. He was denied bail today for the second time since his arrest in July. On August 4, all the sites hosted by Freedom Hosting — some with no connection to child porn — began serving an error message with hidden code embedded in the page. Security researchers dissected the code and found it exploited a security hole in Firefox to identify users of the Tor Browser Bundle, reporting back to a mysterious server in Northern Virginia. The FBI was the obvious suspect, but declined to comment on the incident. The FBI also didn't respond to inquiries from WIRED today. But FBI Supervisory Special Agent Brooke Donahue was more forthcoming when he appeared in the Irish court yesterday to bolster the case for keeping Marque behind bars."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846063)

I have no strong feelings on this controversy.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (4, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year ago | (#44846125)

Its called "unauthorized access of a computer" which is a federal offense.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846185)

Uhh ... given that he who was the gold makes the rules, if there was a court order allowing it, or a clause in some law allowing it, it was authorized, just not by the owners of the computers.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846325)

Uhh ... given that he who was the gold makes the rules, if there was a court order allowing it, or a clause in some law allowing it, it was authorized, just not by the owners of the computers.

Sorry, but I'm failing to follow your point here. Since when is an electronic device a waiver to standard privacy and due process?

Perhaps if the FBI were trying to break into my car I would understand this analogy better, but my point still stands. A "computer" is not automatic grounds for illegal wiretaps (and when I use the term "illegal", I'm referring to my Constitutionally protected Rights, not some secret court horseshit that "authorized" a waiver around said Rights, which remains illegal no matter who granted it.)

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (5, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | about a year ago | (#44846451)

If there's a court order behind this, it's less problematic in my mind. Not all court orders are publicized even by normal courts; search warrants aren't provided to the targets to challenge before execution precisely so they can't hide or destroy evidence.

The problem I have with this operation is that it was conducted on servers located in France, which means that either French law enforcement was also involved (very possible) or the FBI is hacking servers across international boundaries. That puts at risk any agents involved as they could be tried under French law for such trespass, though given that it was to deal with child pornography, the political result is that it probably wouldn't result in much more than a warning.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (5, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#44846567)

A US court order might as well be toilet paper in France or anywhere else in the world. No US court has the authority to authorise that.

In fact many countries would take that as an act of war.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (4, Funny)

Tatarize (682683) | about a year ago | (#44846621)

France should take it as such too!

Surrender in 5...4...3...2...

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (2, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#44846637)

The presidents of European nations all heal to the same masters as ours. Seen a NYTimes photo of Turkeys elected leader. Same suit, same tie, same generic lapel pin, on the same side. They are uniformed soldiers doing their duty. If there's any outrage from a local or lower government official it will just be to placate the masses, save face, the end of said officials careers. Might as well be clones IMO.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846775)

A US court order might as well be toilet paper in France or anywhere else in the world. No US court has the authority to authorise that.

In fact many countries would take that as an act of war.

They don't need a court order in France or anywhere else in the world other than the US. The concept of "legality" doesn't work the same when you're talking about a government agency operating inside the borders of a different nation.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

Tatarize (682683) | about a year ago | (#44846615)

Maybe there is such a law or court order allowing it and it's just hidden? Do you have security clearance enough to know whether they broke the law?

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44846337)

Its called "unauthorized access of a computer" which is a federal offense.

That sounds bad. I hear that police cars have been known to speed, and police officers have shot people. What is the world coming to?

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (3, Funny)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#44846487)

And now they can serve gigabytes of child porn to pedophiles, then serve malware to practically everyone who uses Tor, pedo or not, and even stupid fascists who love to ramble on about justice and other shit to justify practically everything will still defend them.

Maybe next they can sell crack too schoolchildren in an attempt to find the crackheads who steal it from them.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

Tatarize (682683) | about a year ago | (#44846631)

Actually you'd need to turn scripts on in tor, and use it outside of tor too. Two things you are never suppose to do with tor. In fact, it's a security problem that the tor browser pack even allows either of those things to be turned on at all. It ended up serving malware to pretty much nobody, I'd figure. I don't know how stupid the average tor user is.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846343)

Shut the fuck up .

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846585)

This is a reasonable use of their power as long as they had a warrant for the seizure. The problem with FBI computer tactics is that they often don't go through the Constitutional requirements for searches and seizures. But if those requirements are met, then it is completely reasonable for the FBI to hack a pedophile database.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846159)

It's far more likely a case of planting "pedo" porn so they would have an excuse to break in and monitor everything in a fit of Snowden based paranoia.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (5, Interesting)

DoubleJ1024 (1287512) | about a year ago | (#44846307)

You joke about that but the county next to mine just had the sheriff arrested for that very thing. He would find his opponents or others who made him angry, arrest them for child porn, plant the child porn, and then splash their name all over the news to ruin their reputation. He finally got caught when he arrested the wrong person. This guy called the FBI and the County District Attorney, who both pressed charges against him. I think the total charge count is around 30 felony counts of evidence tampering, witness tampering, intimidation, and other corruption issues. This stuff is too good to be made up sometimes.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846461)

Shut the fuck up!

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (3, Interesting)

Apothem (1921856) | about a year ago | (#44846499)

So what source do you have to prove this?

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44846771)

Try felony counts evidence tampering, witness tampering, intimidation and sheriff in google with a one year date limit.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#44846601)

+5 for unsourced anecdotes?

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (3, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#44846645)

Its not the first time I have read about it. I read about an incident similar to this several years ago in a mainstream news outlet... NYTimes, Time, or some other magazine.

The problem is that it occurs more then once every few years.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846241)

Shut the fuck up.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (5, Insightful)

return 42 (459012) | about a year ago | (#44846295)

First they came for the pedophiles on Freedom Hosting, and I said nothing because pedophiles are scum.

Then they came for the drug dealers on Silk Road, and I said nothing because drug dealers are scum too.

Then they came for the leakers on {Wiki|Live|you pick one}Leaks, and I said nothing because I don't have time to read that stuff anyway.

Then they passed a law against using privacy tools such as Tor, Mixmaster, proxies, and crypto, because terrorists 9/11 OMG, and I said nothing because I have nothing to hide.

Then I tried to fly to my Dad's funeral and found out that I'm on the no-fly list. I still am. No one will tell me why, and there's nothing I can do to change it.

Then the police broke down my door because I had set up my wireless router wrong and someone had done something illegal over my connection, and it took me three years to get the charges dropped, and I lost my job and had to file bankruptcy, and I never did get my computer back. And what happened to the government agents who had wrongly prosecuted me? Nothing whatsoever. And what compensation did I get? The court ruled that the government had not violated its rules and therefore I was not owed anything. Have a nice day.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44846485)

Given the message of the original "First they came ..." [wikipedia.org] by Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org] , are you suggesting that people "stand up" for pedophiles and drug dealers?

You have quite a confused hodgepodge of things in your list. I see agitation, but not insight.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846555)

yes! stand up for rights and freedom regardless.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846559)

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#44846579)

*cough* alleged paedophiles technically.

Oh an a whole lot of completely legal, less seedy things like email.

expose the shillatary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846589)

it appears that someone or some group is attempting to intimidate the writers of insightful comments.

it is possible this is an attempt at sardonically drawing attention to the process of intimidation.

eitherway, i believe ALL THESE virtually identical POSTS should not be modded down and hidden, but instead MODDED UP.

everyone should see the violence inherent in the system. help help im being repressed, you saw him didnt you ;)

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#44846607)

Then the police broke down my door because I had set up my wireless router wrong and someone had done something illegal over my connection, and it took me three years to get the charges dropped, and I lost my job and had to file bankruptcy, and I never did get my computer back. And what happened to the government agents who had wrongly prosecuted me? Nothing whatsoever. And what compensation did I get? The court ruled that the government had not violated its rules and therefore I was not owed anything. Have a nice day.

Ah, yes....

Remember all those long-ago Slashdot discussions with one side shouting "Tin-foil hat!" every time possible chilling effects like this were postulated?

Dude, your ID shows that you signed up not much longer after I did (in an era when we told ourselves the old baddies--those twisted, ruthless peronality types--couldn't possibly exist in our groovy postmodern times.

--now--

--here we are!

You're probably on that list for being an opinionated online malcontent.

Good luck to you (and me).

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#44846755)

Why are drug dealers on SilkRoad scum? Is your local bartender scum as well?

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about a year ago | (#44846315)

Then the "child porn" has done its job nicely.

Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846733)

I have no strong feelings on this controversy.

Paedophiles, huh?

So you have no strong feelings against YOUR rights being violated as long as it's to catch paedophiles.

Greeting citizen, you have passed the first step towards being permitted to remain a citizen.

Tormail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846065)

Great, FBI...now if you would go ahead and put tormail back up, that'd be great...

Re:Tormail... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846245)

Shut the fuck up

Re:Tormail... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846255)

You're a fool if you actually believe their attack was against pedophiles.

Lets just face it already. Our government is out of control and it won't be easy to stop now that things are so far in motion.

Re:Tormail... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846445)

Shut the fuck up ..

Re:Tormail... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846613)

Shut your fuck up.

Re:Tormail... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846653)

You better watch your fucking mouth, boy. I could end your worthless life.

The NSA controlled the servers (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846089)

Nope, the NSA controlled the servers, it led to an NSA controlled IP address and they have the hackers needed. The BIG FAT LIE was that this block could be used by other agencies. Since potentially NSA broke the law for USA domestic Tor users, we have the FBI stepping forward to take the blame.

But we know its the NSA that tracks and monitors TOR because it was in their leaked document as one of their many excuses for surveillance:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document

Also go read the first leaked warrant that let the NSA collect all the data (link below), it had the FBI's name on it. It was an FBI request to hand the data from Verizon's phone records to the NSA, a simple reacharound the domestic spying laws. The FBI acts as wing man for the NSA:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

FBI doesn't have the experts, or the IP address or the interest in Tor, it was NSA and it was timed just as the NSA was trying to prevent further leaks from its own analysts. At best the FBI simply provides the excuse, as it did with the Verizon incident.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a year ago | (#44846135)

Nope, the NSA controlled the servers, it led to an NSA controlled IP address and they have the hackers needed.

Don't be ridiculous. The NSA hackers were probably laughing and pointing at the FBI and snickering about how they were amateurs. Remember the NSA has only gotten caught when they've been betrayed, not because their technical means were discovered.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44846171)

Remember the NSA has only gotten caught when they've been betrayed, not because their technical means were discovered.

Only for very specific definitions of "caught" - back in 2007 we were pretty sure [wired.com] they had fucked with Dual_EC_DRBG.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (1)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#44846619)

Nope, the NSA controlled the servers, it led to an NSA controlled IP address and they have the hackers needed.

Don't be ridiculous. The NSA hackers were probably laughing and pointing at the FBI and snickering about how they were amateurs. Remember the NSA has only gotten caught when they've been betrayed, not because their technical means were discovered.

Uh... why would the FBI care about being caught? They are a domestic, (supposedly) civil police organization, while the NSA are military and international.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846253)

Shut the fuck up..

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (3, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about a year ago | (#44846467)

Did you have a point to make or did you just not like the message?

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846521)

Just another AC spammer. Ignore him.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846581)

Shut the fuck up.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846573)

Shut the fuck up. Obey or get beat down.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846795)

Padding your CV to apply for the role of a government thug, I see?

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (5, Interesting)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about a year ago | (#44846517)

TFA sez "The official IP allocation records maintained by the American Registry for Internet Numbers show the two Magneto-related IP addresses were part of a ghost block of eight addresses that have no organization listed. Those addresses trace no further than the Verizon Business data center in Ashburn, Virginia, 20 miles northwest of the Capital Beltway."
 
So it's not clear if those addresses belong to the FBI, the CIA, NSA, or anyone else.
 
Is this even "legal" on the Internet? Perhaps those IP addresses should be reclaimed and reassigned by ARIN since "nobody" is using them and IPV4 addresses are now in short (nonexistent) supply.

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846593)

Shut the fuck up .

Re:The NSA controlled the servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846541)

FBI, ICE, ATF are among many US law enforcement organizations who should have great interest in Tor when the defendant is in the US, or falls under a collaboration deal with another foreign law enforcement agency. They also have experts. NSA, on the other hand, provides services under the Reagan's executive order from the 80's and they don't have any reason not to apply minimization procedures for their products in a case like this.

Welcome to the USA... (4, Insightful)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#44846107)

Land where Freedom will not be tolerated.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846131)

The server was in France, and the the admin is being prosecuted in Ireland.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846147)

Good. You shouldn't be free to host child porn.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846205)

" You shouldn't be free"

That phrase is very telling and describes every file service on the Internet.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846217)

No, actually, you're wrong. You should be allowed to post any content you wish. In this case, though, you should be mentally equiped with the moral, ethical code that would tell you that child porn is wrong. Of course, that observation only moves itself along to yet another point.. That is the failing of society and culture to properly cultivate those skills. A conversation beyond the scope of /.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846305)

Morality is subjective, so what you're saying makes little sense to me. You can't truly cure people who want to look at child porn, anyway.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846439)

No, you're wrong as well. Focusing simply on the child porn in this case is basically ignoring the larger picture and the people who were NOT engaged in illegal activities in this matter. It becomes a far less trivial thing when innocent people are involved, especially since they moved to a system like Tor because they couldn't trust their own government, who just proved their lack of trust right.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846779)

Good. You shouldn't be free to host child porn.

Actually, moron, yes - you should. That's the whole fucking point of freedom.

"So you support child pornography"

Oh, here we go again. That's a very, very old trick that only a fucking moron like you would try to use.

No, I do not. I'd be very happy if all paedophiles were rounded up tomorrow and executed. Yes, executed.

PROVIDED you do not TRAMPLE ALL OVER *EVERYONE'S* RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, TO DO SO.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846441)

Welcome to the internet. Property of the US government since it's inception.

Re:Welcome to the USA... (1)

schlachter (862210) | about a year ago | (#44846611)

XXXX, XXXX, it's all XXXX, I tell ya.

Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (5, Insightful)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | about a year ago | (#44846113)

Remember when we used to think that U.S. LEOs still had some sense of ethics and would never actually send child porn to anyone to make a case? Now we know that, at least for a while, the FBI was running the servers. The FBI was responsible for serving up, by all accounts, half the *.onion-based child porn sites in the world.

Is this the first time they crossed this line? Or have they done so before?

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846165)

According to the summary: On August 4, all the sites hosted by Freedom Hosting — some with no connection to child porn — began serving an error message with hidden code embedded in the page.

The FBI didn't serve any child porn. While they had control of the servers, the sites served nothing but an error page with their trojan.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (4, Informative)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#44846509)

They had control of the servers since late July (citation: the summary, try reading it). They started serving malware in August.

What calender are you using during which August comes before July? Or did I miss the announcement that we'd have a dozen or so extra leapdays this year?

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#44846167)

Is this the first time they crossed this line? Or have they done so before?

IIRC, the USPS did this as long ago as the 80s...

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846177)

They did it to catch pornographers.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | about a year ago | (#44846501)

That's the cover story..

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (0)

mechtech256 (2617089) | about a year ago | (#44846199)

Due to the nature of TOR, their actions are very grey area.

If the FBA wasn't running the exit nodes, the traffic would just be routed through another exit node. The CP was going to be delivered regardless of the FBI's involvement.

But on the other hand, this (arguable valid) line of reasoning isn't how the law sees it. Perhaps the FBI will get a taste of its own medicine, but unfortunately it's hard to imagine that this will actually get a comparable trial to what an average US citizen would get.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (4, Interesting)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#44846539)

*.onion sites do not work that way. They are hosted within the Tor network itself, and should never see an exit node. The only thing the server communicates with is localhost, on a port that Tor runs on. They are designed to protect the identity of the server operator, but are also useful in that they can get around almost any NAT bullshit going on. Anyway, the FBI would have to be actively running those servers that were serving child porn, so they don't get a pass with that excuse.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846229)

Remember when we used to think that U.S. LEOs still had some sense of ethics and would never actually send child porn to anyone to make a case?

No, I don't remember thinking that. They'll sell you drugs, encourage you to do terrorist acts, whatever.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846239)

The FBI, your local authorities, your gov. They've all crossed all the lines. Any agency that is permitted to lie in pursuit of justice is thereby contradictory in itself.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about a year ago | (#44846271)

US authorities have a long history of peddling pornography through the mail, whatever kind was most offensive to society at the time. Nowadays it's kiddie porn, but that wasn't always the case.

Goes back a hundred years at least.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44846369)

Remember when we used to think that U.S. LEOs still had some sense of ethics and would never actually send child porn to anyone to make a case? Now we know that, at least for a while, the FBI was running the servers. The FBI was responsible for serving up, by all accounts, half the *.onion-based child porn sites in the world.

Are you trying to claim that the FBI pushed child porn to people that weren't looking for it? Or are you complaining that they seized an existing child porn distribution network and ran a sting against people that came looking for it?

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846575)

Last I checked, a string in the real world doesn't also affect a lot of innocent people and further legitimizing their fears that they're being snooped on and their privacy means nothing.

Re:Takeaway: The FBI Served Up Child Porn (2)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#44846629)

Remember when we used to think that U.S. LEOs still had some sense of ethics and would never actually send child porn to anyone to make a case? Now we know that, at least for a while, the FBI was running the servers. The FBI was responsible for serving up, by all accounts, half the *.onion-based child porn sites in the world.

Is this the first time they crossed this line? Or have they done so before?

Yes, and they also browbeat poor and indigent people (sometimes a hundred times or more) into acts of "terrorism". And they do it within the environs of leftist political movements. Making the population unnecessarily afraid of death/dismemberment from otherwise peaceful political groups is terrorist activism in a class of its own.

Why is he being extradited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846137)

Oh, I forgot. The internet is US soil, right?

Re:Why is he being extradited? (5, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | about a year ago | (#44846489)

The bank account in Las Vegas means that he was paying for (and perhaps profiting from) the servers. That provides US jurisdiction no matter where the data was being stored. The same thing happens around the world: if part of an action happens within a given country and it's illegal in that country, jurisdiction applies. They may have to work through extradition, but in this case, France may also look to get a piece of him, especially if he's not convicted in the US. France may then go through extradition to get him into their courts for storing child porn on French soil.

Re:Why is he being extradited? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846551)

Because no one wants pedophiles. There's been many suggestions to deport all of them to a small (5*10 meters) island in the pacific ocean (Pedoph Isle), but funding is unavailable at this time.

Re:Why is he being extradited? (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about a year ago | (#44846595)

Oh, I forgot. The internet is US soil, right?

Soil? Its dirty, I'll give you that...

Why the limited attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846163)

From what I've read, they could have made the payload attack a lot more kinds of browsers to at least reveal their IP address, and the bug they used to run arbitrary code existed on a lot more versions than the single version they attacked.

So why was the attack so targeted? Were they looking for a single person and already knew what code they were running?

Naw the answer has to be more incompetent than that.

Re:Why the limited attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846195)

If they have the technical means, they're compelled to narrow the search to the conditions specified in the warrant. This isn't the NSA; they need the criminal convictions to enhance their careers.

Re:Why the limited attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846311)

As if the FBI has ever cared about the constitution...

"some with no connection to child porn" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846169)

"all the sites hosted by Freedom Hosting — some with no connection to child porn"

Uh...huh... More than likely, 99.99% had nothing to do with child porn.

Re:"some with no connection to child porn" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846335)

No, really, on TOR it's 50/50 whether a site you browse to is hosting or linking to child porn.

Re:"some with no connection to child porn" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846379)

Total nonsense.

Re:"some with no connection to child porn" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846385)

why do pedos have to ruin everything? i guess the same reason greedy bankers have to ruin everything....humans are shit.

Needs to be said loud and clear... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846297)

Hey. Americans. Your country FUCKING SUCKS.

Re:Needs to be said loud and clear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846535)

because this totally helps things. You make it sound like that people actually have control over their government or something these days.

What the fuck is going on? (5, Interesting)

Kevin Fishburne (1296859) | about a year ago | (#44846429)

How is any of this remotely legal? Every day we have a new article explaining how the feds have been pounding our apparently imagined liberties in the goat ass, they get 300-500 comments (a lot for ./ these days) and then nothing happens. I'm a healthy skeptic, but this is literally the paranoid conspiracy-theorist's worse nightmare incarnate. I'm flabbergasted. In all seriousness, do we need to just move to a different country at some point? Is this what the start of a pseudo-democracy looks like and we just can't believe the warning signs are real? Just crazy...

Re:What the fuck is going on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846469)

People are starting to do things though. Snowden waiting to see if Obama would reverse it but when Obama only made it worse Snowden had to go public. So , yes, people actually ARE hitting a breaking point.

Re:What the fuck is going on? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846507)

Fuck em! (the people). They voted for those fascists Democrats a second go around, they can all suffer in the most painful way possible. Get used to the boot on your throat bitches!!!

Re:What the fuck is going on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846549)

It has been this way for decades. Now that enough of the population grew up in a sham republic they can be more blatant about it because there aren't enough people left who can tell the difference.

Re:What the fuck is going on? (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | about a year ago | (#44846565)

You can't win by moving to another country. As much as Germany got up in arms about the NSA spying on it, German intelligence agencies have also been found to be skirting their own laws regarding monitoring people. If you want to move you have to find a country that is:
* Not part of UKUSA (knocking out United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK)
* Not part of NATO (knocking from the list Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Turkey)
* Not extremely friendly to or reliant on US intelligence assets (removing Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, Israel, and much of South America)
* Not part of the former Soviet Union (even Ukraine is working closely with Moscow these days)
* Not making a public point of monitoring its residents (China, India, and others)
* Still reasonably democratic and not horribly corrupt (seriously, US corruption has nothing on most of the world)

The list gets very small at this point. You have Finland and Sweden, but they're not trivial places to move to weather-wise unless you've lived in, say, Alaska or Maine, and Sweden may have been working with the NSA and/or monitoring its residents. Switzerland is also a possibility. But these require some very significant personal choices, involve massive lifestyle changes, and may not be possible as even the short list of nations that do fit the bill don't make immigration easy.

Re:What the fuck is going on? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#44846671)

Honduras was supposed to be pretty good. Though Latin America is a playground for these people.

However if your just a meaningless expatriate who does not get involved in corrupt local politics or drugs. You could potentially live out 2-4 decades peacefully in a South American country, or one that may have recently gotten back in good standing with the IMF, such as Argentina. But don't take my word from it. This is only gleaned from my cursory research googling the web.

Re:What the fuck is going on? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#44846675)

My personal favorites are hostile and extreme environments with the lowest population densities. Where you will not be of interest.

Re:What the fuck is going on? (-1, Flamebait)

cavreader (1903280) | about a year ago | (#44846609)

Is there any example of the FBI or NSA misusing any of the data they are supposed to collecting? Your rights are not diminished until you are charged with a crime and prosecuted. You can then put the issue in front of a judge who will issue a ruling on the legality of the methods used to collect data from you and trying to use it as evidence against you in court. The judicial branch has the power to nullify the controversial law. And if you are concerned about the low number of people protesting or not protesting maybe you should consider that your opinion is not widely shared with the majority.

Re:What the fuck is going on? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846669)

Is there any example of the FBI or NSA misusing any of the data they are supposed to collecting?

Yes, there is [reuters.com] . The Special Operations Division of the DEA used NSA intercepts to target people for arrest. "After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as 'parallel construction.'"

Re:What the fuck is going on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846679)

So neither the judge nor the court knew of the illegal nature of the method used to make the initial investigation so they couldn't rule on its legality. Catch 22.

Re:What the fuck is going on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44846739)

Simple: When you make the laws, everything is legal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?